The court's statement that the case had been "languishing since 2010" does not suffice, inasmuch as it fails to specify any "specific conduct ... demonstrat[ing] a general pattern of delay" ( CPLR 205[a] [emphasis added]). As this Court has recently held, a "general pattern of delay" must comprise more than one instance of dilatory conduct (seeU.S. Bank N.A. v. Kim, 192 A.D.3d 612, 613, 146 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept. 2021], appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 932, 146 N.Y.S.3d 871, 169 N.E.3d 1235 [2021] [the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a) because the order dismissing its prior action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), based on a failure to seek a default judgment within one year of the default, "did not include any findings of specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay"]; see alsoHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Janvier, 187 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 133 N.Y.S.3d 596 [2d Dept. 2020] [same]; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Moomey–Stevens, 168 A.D.3d 1169, 1170–1171, 91 N.Y.S.3d 788 [3d Dept. 2019] [same]). In brief, a single data point does not a "general pattern" make.
With respect to the savings statute issue, the Court finds that the prior case was not dismissed on the merits and therefore plaintiff was entitled to bring a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a). The First Department has found that a party may utilize CPLR 205(a) even where a plaintiff's previous case was dismissed for taking more than four years to bring a motion for a default judgment (U.S. Bank N.A., Tr. to Bank of Am., N.A. v Kim, 192 A.D.3d 612 [1st Dept 2021], appeal dismissed sub nom. U.S. Bank N.A. v Kim, 37 N.Y.3d 932 [2021]). In Kim, a plaintiff's initial foreclosure action (brought in 2010) was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) for failure to take proceedings within a year of the borrower's default.